Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - Challenge in the present writ petition is to the appointments of the private respondents as Additional District & Sessions Judges in the State of Punjab and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the High Court to hold interview afresh of the eligible candidates.

2. The High Court advertised 21 posts of Punjab Superior Judicial Service to be filled up by direct recruitment in the State of Punjab through competitive examination under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’) vide notification dated 02.02.2008. Out of the said posts, 10 posts were meant for General Category, 6 posts for Scheduled Castes Category, 2 posts for Backward Class Category, 1 for Backward Class (Ex-Servicemen) category, 1 for Ex-Servicemen (General Category) and 1 for Physically Challenged Category of Locomotor or Orthopedic Disability.

3. In pursuance of such advertisement, the petitioner applied for one of the posts meant for General Category. A written examination was conducted, the result of which was declared on 29.05.2008. 31 candidates from the General Category were declared successful. On 02.07.2009 to 04.07.2009, interviews were conducted for which the petitioner was called for to appear in the viva voce on 03.07.2008. The interview was conducted by a Committee of five Judges.

4. The challenge in the writ petition inter-alia is to the conduct of written examination and viva voce by the Committee. The said issue was also raised in CWP No.16456 of 2008 titled as “Dharm Chand Vs. The State of Punjab & others”. The said petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 08.02.2011. It has been held that proceedings of the Recruitment Committee were approved by the Full Court and thereafter recommendations were made leading to consequential appointments. It has also been held that having participated in the selection process and not succeeding, the petitioner is estopped to challenge the selection process.

5. Another writ petition bearing CWP No.20729 of 2008 titled as “Sudeepti Sharma vs. State of Punjab & others”, came to be decided by this Court on 19.08.2013, wherein numerous grounds to challenge the same selection process remained unsuccessful. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that most of the grounds to challenge have remained unsuccessful in the two cases, still he has the following submissions to make to impugn the selections. He submits that:

1. Since the vacancies advertised occurred prior to the promulgation of the Rules, therefore, such vacancies have to be filled up in terms of the Rules applicable at the time of accrual of vacancies. In support of such argument, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.V. Ranghia and others vs. State of A.P. AIR 1983 SC 852;

2. Rule 7(3) (c) of the Rules contemplating accelerated promotion to the extent of 25% amongst in-service candidates, is illegal as it violates the mandate of Article 233 of the Constitution of India, which contemplates that a person already in service cannot be appointed as a District Judge including Additional District Judge as a candidate with less than seven years practice at the Bar can also seek promotion; and

3. Hemant Gopal-respondent No.9 is ineligible for appointment, as he was in full time employment by Bhai Gurdas Institute of Law, Sangrur and also he was running an academy. In support of such argument, the petitioner relies upon the prospectus of Bhai Gurdas Institute of Law, Sangrur, wherein in respect of respondent No.9, it is said to the following effect:

“The law students should not pass out only as law graduates but they should pass out with full advocacy skills, is the motto our young and hard working lecturer Hemant Gopal who is B.com, P.G.D.B.M. LL.B., LL.M., and has been practicing since 1999 in the Civil Courts, Barnala and have been nominated as a member of DLSA Sangrur (Lok Adalat) by District Legal Services Authority, Sangrur and Legal